UPDATE: Essential Research has the Coalition lead up from 55-45 to 56-44, from primary votes of 48% for the Coalition (steady), 33% for Labor (down one) and 9% for the Greens (steady). There are also numerous questions on national debt, led off by the finding that 48% are aware that Australia’s is relatively low compared to other countries against 25% who believe otherwise. However, 46% believe the main reason for Australia’s debt is that the “government are poor economic managers”, against 26% for the world economy and 17% for the high dollar. Same-sex marriage has been gauged for the second time in a fortnight, showing 58% support (up four on last time) and 32% opposition (down one).
Extending from outer northern Adelaide into rural territory beyond, Wakefield has existed in name since South Australia was first divided into electorates in 1903, but its complexion changed dramatically when its southern neighbour Bonython was abolished when the state’s representation was cut from 12 seats to 11 at the 2004 election. Previously a conservative rural and urban fringe seat encompassing the Murray Valley and Yorke Peninsula, it came to absorb the heavily Labor-voting industrial centre of Elizabeth in the outer north of Adelaide while retaining the satellite town of Gawler, the Clare Valley wine-growing district, and the Gulf St Vincent coast from Two Wells north to Port Wakefield. Labor’s overwhelming strength in Elizabeth is balanced by strong support for the Liberals in Clare and the rural areas, along moderate support in Gawler.
The redistribution to take effect at the coming election has cut Labor’s margin from 12.0% to 10.3% by making two changes at the electorate’s southern end. The boundary with Port Adelaide has been redrawn, removing 8000 voters in the strongly Labor area around Salisbury North while adding around 700 west of Princes Highway. Immediately east of Gawler the boundaries have been made to conform with those of Barossa Valley District Council, adding 2600 voters around Lyndoch from Barker and 2100 around Williamstown from Mayo.
Prior to 2004, Wakefield was won by the prevailing major conservative party of the day at every election except 1938 and 1943, the only two occasions when it was won by Labor, and 1928, when it was by the Country Party. The seat was held for the Liberals from 1983 to 2004 by Neil Andrew, who served as Speaker from 1998 onwards. When the 2004 redistribution turned Wakefield’s 14.7% margin into a notional Labor margin of 1.5%, Andrew at first considered challenging Patrick Secker for preselection in Barker, but instead opted to retire. Wakefield was nonetheless retained for the Liberals at the ensuing election by David Fawcett, who picked up a 2.2% swing off a subdued Labor vote around Elizabeth to unseat Martyn Evans, who had held Bonython for Labor since 1994. Fawcett’s slender margin was demolished by a 7.3% swing in 2007, but he would return to parliament as a Senator after the 2010 election. As was the case with Labor’s other two South Australia gains at that election, Wakefield swung strongly to Labor in 2010, boosting the margin from 6.6% to 12.0%.
Labor’s member over the past two terms has been Nick Champion, a former state party president, Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association official and staffer for state Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright. The SDA link identifies him with the potentate of the South Australian Right, Senator Don Farrell. Champion came out in support of Kevin Rudd in the days before his unsuccessful February 2012 leadership challenge, resigning as caucus secretary to do so. Champion’s Liberal opponent will be Tom Zorich, a local sports store retailer, former Gawler councillor and one-time player and club president of the Central Districts Football Club. Despite the size of the margin he faces, the Liberals are reportedly buoyed by weak polling for Labor in South Australia generally, and by Holden’s announcement in April that 400 jobs would be cut at its Elizabeth plant.
What would be a suitable Qanda audience for Abbott?
Pensioners?
ML@2099. For the past two decades or so, whenever an Australian PM or GG goes overseas, they are typically accompanied by an official medical advisor named Dr Killer (lovely bloke).
zoomster@2101: rugger buggers and altar boys
zoomster
[
What would be a suitable Qanda audience for Abbott?]
.
.
Orrrrrr
[zoomster
Posted Monday, May 6, 2013 at 8:52 pm | PERMALINK
What would be a suitable Qanda audience for Abbott?
Pensioners?]
Well he is winning with both men and women, every age strata, and every state except Victoria according to the latest polling….so take your pick!
We had Drs. Death and Killer here in Canberra. Still both around I think.
There was a very good obstetrician in Canberra called Dr Cutter
meher – Killer is an ex-RAAF guy.
ModLib
once again, evading the question.
The PM is comfortable going on Qanda, Abbott isn’t.
She can obviously handle any audience, but Abbott doesn’t seem to feel he can.
I want to make it as easy as possible for him, and identify an audience he will feel comfortable talking to and won’t run away from.
Meher Baba…: “Howard did quite a lot of good things as PM that are now ALP policy too: gun law reform, the introduction of the GST, lifetime health cover for private health insurance, some aspects of National
Competition Policy, tightened security post-9/11, the development of an emissions trading scheme (alas, no longer Lib policy), some aspects of enterprise bargaining, the Medicare safety net, the big tobacco tax increases, the Murray-Darling Basin reforms, big increases in funding for scientific and medicsl research, the Pacific Solution, some aspects of natural resource management policy, some aspects of the Northern Territory intervention and (with a lot of help from the mining boom) a budget generally in surplus (which seems to still be Labor policy, even though they’ve struggled to achieve it).”
Alright, lets go through this one by one..:
1)Gun law reform…A tick!..but a reactionary one.
2)GST. But I recall he wanted to put it on cooked food as well and only pulled that after protest…it still disadvantages the poor most.
3)Life cover for private health…OF COURSE!..If you keep paying.
4)Some aspects of NCP. Does that include the free-trade agreement with the USA?
5)Post 9/11..Hicks? Haneef? hundred thousand+ people killed in Iraq etc.
6)”Enterprise bargaining”…= Workchoices!!
7)Medicare saftey net…grudging, churlish yeild, would prefer to get rid of it altogether!
8)Tobacco tax increase…can’t complain, but seriously doubt any good intention save tax collection!
9)Murray Darl’ Basin….??surely you jest!?..
10) Medical research increases…Yes, but by scalping other areas of the tertiary sector.
11)Pacific solution…no!..still a running sore.
12)Natural resources management…can’t recal anything save ..; “go for it!”
13)NT. intervention…selective racism at its’ best!
14)Budget in surplace…Yes, after selling everything that wasn’t nailed down!
[zoomster
Posted Monday, May 6, 2013 at 8:59 pm | PERMALINK
ModLib
once again, evading the question.]
You asked what would be a suitable audience and I responded with saying that Abbott is winning every demographic you care to mention.
Its not evading the question, its answering in a way that you don’t like :devil: there is a difference!
Abbott doesn’t need to go on QandA….he is cruising
How about life savers, fire fighters and cyclists?
….or charity workers?
[Abbott doesn’t need to go on QandA….he is cruising]
‘Doesn’t need to’/knows he’d get flogged in even attempting it.
He’ll be a laughing stock and an embarrassment if he gets in.
ModLib
no, it isn’t. You haven’t identified an audience Abbott would feel comfortable with.
I know you can’t, but you could have a try.
davidwh
Yes, that might work.
zoomster:
I thought you could join the dots, but if you can’t let me help:
Q: What audience would be suitable for Abbott (or as you just put it what audience would Abbott be comfortable with.
Facts:
Abbott is winning both men and women (Morgan)
Abbott is winning all age categories (Neilsen)
Abbott is winning every state except Victoria (Neisen)
So we can assume that any audience, with either men or women, who have any age range from 18 years to >65 years from any state other than Victoria want Abbott to be PM
A: Therefore, you could choose pretty much any audience for Abbott
Abbott fronting a Qanda audience?
*laughs hysterically*
What was it I was talking about ego’s the other night Mod Lib ?
[A: Therefore, you could choose pretty much any audience for Abbott]
*laughs even more hysterically*
If that were the case we’d have seen Abbott front Qanda by himself by now.
The evidence suggests that Abbott’s minders simply don’t trust him to do unscripted, live TV regardless of the polls.
Gutless and lacking in policy depth.
We now seem to be seeing real ML – stopped pretending that Talc will be there instead.
ModLib
you obviously have no sense of humour at all. Sad.
Interesting, though – one minute you claim you don’t like Abbott, you won’t defend him, you might not even vote for him, but gee, you’re quick to fire up when you think someone might be being a little dismissive of him, aren’t you!
The fact is, we know that an audience of average Australians, even weighted by polling figures, is too scary for Abbott, because he’s had every opportunity to face up to one.
So he wouldn’t face up to the audience you outline. He might, however, to david’s blokey sportsy one.
You say I don’t have a sense of humour…..have you not seen how I respond to Meguirre?????
joe carli@2110. You didn’t really identify too many negatives there. The GST is applied to cooked food: fresh food is exempt (thanks to the Democrats) as are a range of other things cut should apply the same to everything IMO b
I specifically didn’t say anything about Iraq (or Afghanistan, which I still support) so I don’t know why you raised it. Hicks was a dodgy character whose lawyer shrewdly won the public relations war. Haneef was a cock-up, first and foremost by the British police, but the AFP played its part too (and then cleverly deflected most of the blame onto thr Minister).
Enterprise bargaining is presumably not Workchoices or else Labor would have gotten rid of it by now.
Like it or lump it, Howard (and Turnbull as environment minister) got Murray-Darling Basin reform started.
[ (thanks to the Democrats) ]
Oh yeah thanks Dems he says as he looks at the 50 dollars GST added to his power bill
[ Howard (and Turnbull as environment minister) got Murray-Darling Basin reform started.]
And then the liberals did what with it?
So what new Ad material will Gillard offer up for the libs tonight.
CTar1@2127. Then the Libs got voted out. And then both the Wongster and Tony Burke did a great job with getting it done. But they were implementing a package that was developed under Howard.
[So what new Ad material will Gillard offer up for the libs tonight.]
Probably the usual sincerity that vitriolic clowns will make fun of.
meher – So the ETS is all down to the Libs as well!
Meher Baba…Of course, I replied from memory and recollection..you too have to admit you framed your positives in vague and broad “brushstrokes”…I wouldn’t grant too many positives to Howard at all, and the ones I would, I have been severely warned off by Mr. Bowe!
Is Qanda broadcast live on ABC24 or are they making an exception for the PM tonight?
CTar1@2131. No, because what has ended up being implemented is quite a bit different to Howard’s version. Anyway, there was nowhere nesr as much certainty of Howard’s ETS being implemented as there was with the water scheme, which was 10 mints into implementation when Rudd was elected.
CTar1@2131. No, because what has ended up being implemented is quite a bit different to Howard’s version. Anyway, there was nowhere nesr as much certainty of Howard’s ETS being implemented as there was with the water scheme, which was 10 months into implementation when Rudd was elected.
Thankfully we have the PM.
Great 1st question!
Meher,
Sorry, but announcing that he would commit to an ETS 4 months before an election he was behind in the polls up to 60:40 is not a genuine commitment. You might remember that he wouldn’t commit to a target until AFTER the election. It was no more genuine than if Gillard comes out this week and says ‘oops sorry about the Carbon Tax folks – direct action is the way to go’. The fact he was running it through his own department instead of Environment was just further confirmation that it was a purely political position.
You’ll have to point me to some evidence for his longer term commitment to water policy unless it was to ensure Cubby Station got every megalitre it was after. Like anything to do with the environment Howard saw only greenies making it tough for his business and the Nat’s farming constituencies. He might have spun a good line here and there but he never did anything substantive in the area.
I’ll give you that it was some sort of achievement to get dairy and sugar deregulation past the Nats, but your claim was that Labor was following Howard’s lead which couldn’t be further from the truth. Labor were the architects of NCP and Howard did sod all to advance it bar a few relatively minor markets.
His achievements may have been a hell of a lot better than the preceding Liberal governments but that says more about those administrations than about his. His record of actual reforms that produce long lasting benefit to the nation pales in comparison to Whitlam and Rudd/Gillard despite having over twice the time in office. Any comparisons to the Hawke/Keating years are just an embarrassment.
He was hit up the arse by a rainbow with first the communications/technology revolution and then the emergence of Asian manufacturing producing increased productivity and importing deflation. Then with a mining boom feeding huge windfall company tax gains that he largely pissed up a wall and fuelled a housing and credit bubble. It was a small government led by a small but extremely lucky man. It’s arguable his luck held even in losing in 07, because I’ve no doubt he and Costello would have failed the nation in responding to the GFC and the myth of economic credibility that they bask in would have been exposed for the fraud it always was.
It’s fine to give Howard credit where it’s due, but there’s no reason to go overboard. It was a decade of very little real reform and there wasn’t even a credible reform agenda on the shelf that a new government could pick up like Hawke could with the Campbell Committee or a future Liberal Government theoretically could with the Henry Review, but obviously won’t because reform is not what conservative government’s do. It’s unfortunate for the country that we’ll likely have to suffer under a do-nothing failure of a Coalition government without fluky off-shore tail winds filling their sails to realise the full extent of how badly wasted the Howard years were.
meher – I’m absolutely sure that the GFC response was all down to little Duck Johney as well as Treasury were so well prepared.
Bring back the savior!
There is a Brisbane radiologist called Dr Slaughter
Great 2nd question!
First question from audience – a positive one.
First response from PM – a positive one.
First Tony Jones interjection – a negative one.
A radiologist wouldn’t have much opportunity to justify that name!
ok
who is watching a real pm
‘on q and a
one who doesn’t get out of being a poly
by running away on bike like like the lno representative
I think Cutter actually is/was a surgeon!
I hope no one from the left tosses a shoe tonight :devil:
jones is always s negative
aound labor mp why is that
mr jones
Jones pwned.
What a dill.
dont worry rummel, it would just be a ballet shoe!
the student respect the pm
more than juno s in this country
they should be ashamed of them selves
watching the p,m
and how nice and pleasant the students
are.
let sack the press
they do nothing constructive for our countyr